The TV licence makes me rage.
Discussion
Cotty said:
marshalla said:
I have car in the garage. I haven't paid the "licence fee" to use it on the roads for 3 years because I haven't wanted to drive it
That's called SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification). If you had a TV in your garage whether you watch it not you they will pursue to to pay for a TV licence. A little different. The issue is often not the fee/tax - but the mechanisms of enforcement. If we had an equivalent of SORN (SNWLBN?) then the complaints about heavy-handed enforcement would reduce dramatically.
Cotty said:
Moonhawk said:
The simple act of owning a TV does not necessitate paying for a TV licence.
Tell that to the people who received threatening letters every month. Telling them they will be taken to court if they don't pay. Regardless whether they watch live TV or not.Every one I can find online contains words to the effect 'if it is found that you watch or record television without a licence - you may be liable to prosecution'.
I'm happy to be corrected - but I cannot find a single letter that states or even implies that the simple act of owning a television set necessitates a TV licence.
Besides - how the TV licence is enforced is a different argument to whether or not it should exist.
marshalla said:
Cotty said:
Its like being required to have a licence to ride a bicycle, even if you don't ride one. You might have a bicycle in your shed that you have not used for years, you need a licence to ride it even though you are not riding it. Arr but you have a bicycle so you have the ability to cycle so you need to pay.
I have car in the garage. I haven't paid the "licence fee" to use it on the roads for 3 years because I haven't wanted to drive it - until last week, when I contacted the "licence fee" agency and paid the fee. Now it's in the garage waiting for me to have time to drive it. If I only ever wanted to use it on a track and had a trailer to take it there, I wouldn't need to pay the "licence fee" for it.The TV licence is not a tax on possession of the equipment - it's tax payable for the receipt of live broadcasts (use of infrastructure). If you never watch live, you don't need to pay the tax.
What would you do if you got a letter every 3 or 4 weeks implying that you were driving your car on the road without licencing it, telling you you may be hauled in front of the courts and get a £1000 fine if guilty, what if one dark evening whilst you were having your dinner there was a knock at the door and when you answered it someone started questioning you about your car use and wanting to prowl around your garage to examine the car.
What if he walks away and because you were telling the truth then lies on the form just to get his £20 commission. What if then you get the police at the door with a warrant and "official investigators" that force their way in and then start interfering with your car looking for signs of use. What if they do all this for the sole reason that nobody could ever live without a car and no-one walks anywhere ever, they all drive so you must be a liar.
And when they don't find any evidence they decide to take you to court anyway for obstructing the warrant because you took 2 minutes to answer the door.
Would you have a problem then?
marshalla said:
If we had an equivalent of SORN (SNWLBN?) then the complaints about heavy-handed enforcement would reduce dramatically.
There is - it's called a "No Licence Needed Declaration". I made such a declaration at a flat I owned because we didn't have an aerial, couldn't be bothered to fit one - so made do with DVDs and catch up services.http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...
stuart313 said:
The problem is members of the public can see this view point and fully agree with you, its the people who collect the licence fee that seem to have an issue with it.
What would you do if you got a letter every 3 or 4 weeks implying that you were driving your car on the road without licencing it, telling you you may be hauled in front of the courts and get a £1000 fine if guilty, what if one dark evening whilst you were having your dinner there was a knock at the door and when you answered it someone started questioning you about your car use and wanting to prowl around your garage to examine the car.
What if he walks away and because you were telling the truth then lies on the form just to get his £20 commission. What if then you get the police at the door with a warrant and "official investigators" that force their way in and then start interfering with your car looking for signs of use. What if they do all this for the sole reason that nobody could ever live without a car and no-one walks anywhere ever, they all drive so you must be a liar.
And when they don't find any evidence they decide to take you to court anyway for obstructing the warrant because you took 2 minutes to answer the door.
Would you have a problem then?
I've had lots of those letters - the licence is in my wife's name, but I buy the gadgetry. What would you do if you got a letter every 3 or 4 weeks implying that you were driving your car on the road without licencing it, telling you you may be hauled in front of the courts and get a £1000 fine if guilty, what if one dark evening whilst you were having your dinner there was a knock at the door and when you answered it someone started questioning you about your car use and wanting to prowl around your garage to examine the car.
What if he walks away and because you were telling the truth then lies on the form just to get his £20 commission. What if then you get the police at the door with a warrant and "official investigators" that force their way in and then start interfering with your car looking for signs of use. What if they do all this for the sole reason that nobody could ever live without a car and no-one walks anywhere ever, they all drive so you must be a liar.
And when they don't find any evidence they decide to take you to court anyway for obstructing the warrant because you took 2 minutes to answer the door.
Would you have a problem then?
I found it amusing that they became more and more "urgent" and threatening in tone over time - then stopped completely. Presumably they fixed the database.
The enforcement regime & agency is the problem. No argument from me there. Part of the problem, as I suggested above, is the lack of a proper statutory mechanism for opting out. (Yes, I know that still creates a "guilty until proven innocent" system - but not really any different to the VED/SORN situation).
Moonhawk said:
marshalla said:
If we had an equivalent of SORN (SNWLBN?) then the complaints about heavy-handed enforcement would reduce dramatically.
There is - it's called a "No Licence Needed Declaration". I made such a declaration at a flat I owned because we didn't have an aerial, couldn't be bothered to fit one - so made do with DVDs and catch up services.http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...
Funk said:
Can't remember the last time I voluntarily listened to any radio output. Why would you when you can stream stuff you like without the ads and flim-flam from presenters who all sound the same?
Regarding a 'flat-tax' levied across all homes I'd be entirely against this too. It's regressive and in the modern world it's easy enough to switch off channels people don't want. I don't subsidise anyone's Sky subscription - why should I subsidise their BBC subscription? I don't want it, don't value it and will never use it so why should I pay for it?
You'd be entirely in favour of road pricing and pay to use NHS?Regarding a 'flat-tax' levied across all homes I'd be entirely against this too. It's regressive and in the modern world it's easy enough to switch off channels people don't want. I don't subsidise anyone's Sky subscription - why should I subsidise their BBC subscription? I don't want it, don't value it and will never use it so why should I pay for it?
Cotty said:
Moonhawk said:
The simple act of owning a TV does not necessitate paying for a TV licence.
Tell that to the people who received threatening letters every month. Telling them they will be taken to court if they don't pay. Regardless whether they watch live TV or not.unfortunately licence evasion is far wider than VED evasion has been in the past , hence the differing approach to enforcement ...
mph1977 said:
Cotty said:
Moonhawk said:
The simple act of owning a TV does not necessitate paying for a TV licence.
Tell that to the people who received threatening letters every month. Telling them they will be taken to court if they don't pay. Regardless whether they watch live TV or not.unfortunately licence evasion is far wider than VED evasion has been in the past , hence the differing approach to enforcement ...
With a TV licence there are no automated detection methods available - they have to rely on a combination of honesty, 'reminder' letters and spot checks.
Moonhawk said:
mph1977 said:
Cotty said:
Moonhawk said:
The simple act of owning a TV does not necessitate paying for a TV licence.
Tell that to the people who received threatening letters every month. Telling them they will be taken to court if they don't pay. Regardless whether they watch live TV or not.unfortunately licence evasion is far wider than VED evasion has been in the past , hence the differing approach to enforcement ...
With a TV licence there are no automated detection methods available - they have to rely on a combination of honesty, 'reminder' letters and spot checks.
but as the BBC is a pinko commie plot to sap the 'Purity Of Essence' of the powerfully built ... they'll neveraccept that
threespires said:
My views seem to be 100% opposite the OP's.
I always have a wry smile when I see people moaning about a tiny licence fee for what is generally considered to be the best TV/Radio/Web service in the world yet they seem perfectly happy to pay considerably more for 40 mins per hour of Sky output, a lot of which I believe is re-cycled US content.
I don't want or pay for either BBC (via TVL) or Sky. In fact it was binning off my Sky that made me realise how little Sky output I watched (my box was full with stuff I'd recorded but never watched) and when it went, I realised how little BBC content I watched so that went too.I always have a wry smile when I see people moaning about a tiny licence fee for what is generally considered to be the best TV/Radio/Web service in the world yet they seem perfectly happy to pay considerably more for 40 mins per hour of Sky output, a lot of which I believe is re-cycled US content.
People always assume we're moaning about the licence fee compared to 'something else'. I don't want 'something else' I want nothing. And I shouldn't have to contribute to it so others can have it. It's not an essential service in the same way education, bin collection or the NHS is.
If the BBC were switched off tomorrow I wouldn't notice.
Moonhawk said:
marshalla said:
If we had an equivalent of SORN (SNWLBN?) then the complaints about heavy-handed enforcement would reduce dramatically.
There is - it's called a "No Licence Needed Declaration". I made such a declaration at a flat I owned because we didn't have an aerial, couldn't be bothered to fit one - so made do with DVDs and catch up services.http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...
They're both privately-owned companies, yet one of them will write me a threatening letter once a month as well as sending goons round to doorstep me. (Hint - it's not Apple).
eldar said:
Funk said:
Can't remember the last time I voluntarily listened to any radio output. Why would you when you can stream stuff you like without the ads and flim-flam from presenters who all sound the same?
Regarding a 'flat-tax' levied across all homes I'd be entirely against this too. It's regressive and in the modern world it's easy enough to switch off channels people don't want. I don't subsidise anyone's Sky subscription - why should I subsidise their BBC subscription? I don't want it, don't value it and will never use it so why should I pay for it?
You'd be entirely in favour of road pricing and pay to use NHS?Regarding a 'flat-tax' levied across all homes I'd be entirely against this too. It's regressive and in the modern world it's easy enough to switch off channels people don't want. I don't subsidise anyone's Sky subscription - why should I subsidise their BBC subscription? I don't want it, don't value it and will never use it so why should I pay for it?
Edited by Funk on Tuesday 26th May 17:14
Funk said:
I don't have to write and tell Apple I'm not using MacOS.
The TV licence is a tax - not a commercial subscription/licence fee - so your comparison is pointless.Given it's tax status - it pays for more than just the BBC.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...
"The fee you pay provides a wide range of TV, radio and online content, as well as developing new ways to deliver it to you. In addition to funding BBC programmes and services, a proportion of the licence fee contributes to the costs of rolling out broadband to the UK population and funding Welsh Language TV channel S4C and local TV channels. This was agreed with the government as part of the 2010 licence fee settlement."
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 26th May 18:35
Moonhawk said:
Funk said:
I don't have to write and tell Apple I'm not using MacOS.
The TV licence is a tax - not a commercial subscription/licence fee - so your comparison is pointless.Given it's tax status - it pays for more than just the BBC.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one...
"The fee you pay provides a wide range of TV, radio and online content, as well as developing new ways to deliver it to you. In addition to funding BBC programmes and services, a proportion of the licence fee contributes to the costs of rolling out broadband to the UK population and funding Welsh Language TV channel S4C and local TV channels. This was agreed with the government as part of the 2010 licence fee settlement."
Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 26th May 18:35
The key difference is that TVL is run by, collected and enforced by Capita, a private company. And the DVLA don't write to you every month with thinly veiled threats.
Presumably you'd be happy to subsidise my VED even though you may not own a car? Thought not...
I think aome people here are being a bit blinkered.
The BBC does produce things that commercial stations don't. Attenbrough being a prime example - the commercial alternatives are over dramtic ste, often close to afamily Guy's pardody "fast animals, slow children".
That any 1 or 2 of us might not want to watch some of the bbc stuff is almost by-the-by. I've never used the dole, or disability, or the British consulate in Saigon. However, i pay my bit towards it because the government elected by us say it's in the plan.
If people want to opt out of the TV license, then it'll only be replaced by an alternative tax. No point getting too angered by it.
The BBC does produce things that commercial stations don't. Attenbrough being a prime example - the commercial alternatives are over dramtic ste, often close to afamily Guy's pardody "fast animals, slow children".
That any 1 or 2 of us might not want to watch some of the bbc stuff is almost by-the-by. I've never used the dole, or disability, or the British consulate in Saigon. However, i pay my bit towards it because the government elected by us say it's in the plan.
If people want to opt out of the TV license, then it'll only be replaced by an alternative tax. No point getting too angered by it.
hunton69 said:
tobinen said:
I think the licence fee is a bloody bargain. BBC radio and telly for £12 a month? Superb.
AgreedWith sky you pay 6 times as much and spend most of the time watching adverts.
Most things gets repeated on free view at a latter date
To watch sky, i must first pay for the BBC. Thats just fundamentally wrong. Its TV, not the NHS.
98elise said:
Sky deliver a service people are happy to pay for, and nobody is forced to pay if they choose not to watch.
To watch sky, i must first pay for the BBC. Thats just fundamentally wrong. Its TV, not the NHS.
Sky just put up the subs by £4 a month to cover the extra there paying for football. I never watch football but have to have Sky 1 for the motorsport so I'm paying £50 a year more. It's the same principleTo watch sky, i must first pay for the BBC. Thats just fundamentally wrong. Its TV, not the NHS.
Sky have 2 forms of income adverts and subs therefor they will and can always outbid the BBC
Think about how much you spend on sky and do you get value for money.
Funk said:
You've made the mistake of thinking that the BBC is an 'essential service'. It's not.
Quite so, optional. As is TV in general, so if you want to watch broadcast TV live, £3 a week. Watch it time delayed, free.Edited by Funk on Tuesday 26th May 17:14
Just like your car. Owning it, free (just SORN), use it you pay.
Cotty said:
Moonhawk said:
The simple act of owning a TV does not necessitate paying for a TV licence.
Tell that to the people who received threatening letters every month. Telling them they will be taken to court if they don't pay. Regardless whether they watch live TV or not.ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TICK THE BOX THAT SAYS YOU DON'T REQUIRE A TV LICENCE.
It's that simple.
I get my annual letter asking me if my situations have changed and since they haven't, I sign into the website following the instructions and repeat the process.
You are quite simply not telling the truth, or the people you know who this is happening to, are stupid.
[tinfoil] P.s. for what it's worth, I also think you lie about the portion sizes you ate on the takeaway thread. Most likely a meal for two served onto a single plate, photographed, then divided into two much to the irritation of the other person sat waiting for their food. [/tinfoil]
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff